Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into politics, military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting.

23 April 2012

Don't Forget to Tip

... for this miscellaneous platter of leftover link sausages of especially dubious origin. And handling. And freshness.

Over at Forbes, where I just finished reading about the Asian Dawn Movement (or was that in Time? so many popular magazines, so little verifiable content), there's a fascinatingly sophisticated yet ignorant piece on vertical integration in electronic publishing. On the one hand, the article provides a fairly good introduction to the way Chicago-school economics analyzes vertical integration. The ignorance... ah, the ignorance. It's both obvious and subtle, and all in the same passage:

Taking the same lessons we can apply them to both being a publisher and a retailer. There’s no obviously common skills in there, to do one well you’ve got to be able to spot good literature (or at least literature that people will buy), edit it, encourage writers, shepherd them through the manuscript process and so on. For the other you need to know logistics essentially. So it’s not obvious that being good at one will lead to being good at the other.

The first ignorant bit here is the tail-wagging-the-dog problem of concentrating on trade fiction as the paradigm for "publishing." It isn't, by any economically respectable measure of any kind; it is, instead, the magician's assistant (and, frankly, not a very attractive or competent one, but that's for another time). The second ignorant bit here is in one qualifier: "good at x." Well, what does that mean? In Chicago school economics, it means "profitable now, as measured against internal and external ROI." It does not consider sustainability; it does not consider asset accumulation as an equally important measure of business success; and, most importantly, it does not consider synergy.

The third ignorant bit is the amusing one, and thoroughly undermines Mr Worstall's analysis: The assumption that publishers are in fact "good at" "spot[ting] good literature (or at least literature that people will buy), edit[ing] it, encourag[ing] writers, shepherd[ing] them through the manuscript process and so on." That, when one takes a look at what has happened in publishing in the last half-century, one must question the competence of publishing companies at any of these tasks — and most especially the first two. And I'm not necessarily pointing at dreck like John Grisham's or Danielle Steele's, because they at least have the dubious virtue of being what some people will buy in the absence of an alternative; I'm talking about celebrity bios (and children's books and even novels), among other categories, that end up going to remainder less than six months after publication.

A piece in Der Spiegel implicitly points out another failure point in Mr Worstall's analysis. In describing one possible future for electronic music downloading, both sides persist in attacking the distributors and ignoring their effect on what actually gets produced in the first place. It's not about which part of the system to attack — there's a subconscious agreement between the purportedly representative musician and the purportedly representative Pirate Party advocate that there are significant problems with the distribution system. It is, instead, the assumption that disintermediation is truly possible... and the corollary that we can "just get rid" of the Industry as we know it and nothing will arise to take its place without radically transforming what is left. That's sort of like assuming that one can just use a chainsaw to separate conjoined twins — and that's a bit much to contemplate even on Monday morning.

My friend Larry Solum ponders what it takes to be a "person", an issue with lots of implications for literature in general and writers specifically. Consider, for example, whether one of Saruman's Uruk-hai qualifies as a "person"... and in which kingdom/realm. Consider, too, what "personhood" means to the Bennett family, or indeed to the Borgia family, or — returning to contemporary political discourse — the Sherriff of Nottingham Maricopa County. Then there's the question of whether lawyers ever qualify...

The Fine Print

Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.

I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.

Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.

I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.

Blog Archive

Warped Weft

Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of the more infamous threads that have appeared here by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.

Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals

These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.

How Appealing is aimed at appellate lawyers and legal news in general. If you care about the state of the law, start here — Howard's commentary is far better balanced, better informed, and better considered than any of the media outlets. To concentrate on the US Supreme Court, don't forget SCOTUSBlog.

Some academics' blawgs with a variety of political (and doctrinal) viewpoints:

The main European IP blawg of interest remains the UK-based IPKat, on a variety of intellectual property issues, with some overlap (with a less Eurocentric view) at IPFinance

The American Constitution Society blawg is a purportedly "liberal" counterweight to the so-called "Federalist Society" (which, despite its claims, should be called "Tory Society") that has yet to establish much coherence... but maybe that's all to the good.

Approximate Views

(page impressions since the last time the server's counters were reset, at present early 2007)